Coronary pressure measurement identifies patients with diffuse coronary artery disease who benefit from coronary revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the pressure drop pattern in patients with diffuse coronary artery disease and treated these patients according to their pressure drop pattern. METHODS: We measured pullback coronary pressure from the distal to the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery in 83 patients with diffuse coronary artery disease. Coronary pressure pattern was divided into two types: the abrupt and gradual pressure drop patterns. Patients with an abrupt pressure drop pattern and fractional flow reserve less than 0.75 underwent coronary revascularization. Patients with gradual pressure drop pattern received medical therapy except five patients, who underwent coronary bypass surgery because of triple vessel disease. We followed these patients for 8-20 (14.3±4.6) months using the grading system of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS grade). RESULTS: Abrupt pressure drop pattern was observed in 47 patients, whereas the remaining 36 patients showed gradual pressure drop pattern. Angiographic findings did not distinguish these pressure drop patterns. All patients with the abrupt pressure drop pattern except one showed symptomatic improvement (the CCS grade decreased from 2.64±0.76 to 1.09±0.35, P<0.01) in response to coronary revascularization. In patients with the gradual pressure drop pattern, 17 of 36 patients showed improvement of symptoms (the CCS grade decreased from 2.31±0.53 to 1.75±0.77, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Coronary pressure measurement distinguished patients with abrupt pressure drop pattern from those with gradual pressure drop pattern, and the former group of patients benefited from coronary revascularization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".